It is futile to negotiate with MR Bad Faith Maburro and the Terrorist State of Cubazuela. The people need to keep faith and implement Plan Cipriano. Once the Venezuelan airlift is landed, and its; leader announces, "soy un Venezolano," the malditos will run to the Castros, and flee the country. Today is day twenty womething of the Leopoldo Lopez hostage crisis, who has now become the Lech Walesa of Venezuela!

It’s hard to say which of these options Maduro will choose, but it’s clear that doing nothing is not an option for him. Praying for a new hike in world oil prices won’t work, because virtually no serious economist is forecasting a major rise in world oil prices anytime soon.
Maduro will have to make massive cuts in public subsidies, which he cannot enforce by himself in a deeply divided country without triggering more — and larger — social protests. Barring an unlikely Chinese bailout, he will need a political agreement with the opposition leaders he now insults every day.

If Venezuela's situation does not deserve your front page, then what must happen? Are there not enough people dead? Not enough violence? Not eough students tortured and jailed? not enough opposition leaders jailed?Not enough thousands marching in protest?20 days of people demonstrating in the streets are not worth of your front page? Please consider it as your own help in respecting freedom of press!!! SOS VENEZUELA! We need The Economist to speak up!!!

"The Economist" is too optimistic. Perhaps they are being charitable or do not want to appear alarmist.

I am just a gringo, but I doubt the Venezuelan Government cares about foreign opinion (or even domestic opinion). They are convinced they are right; they are convinced that they are creating a utopian state. Most probably, they will create a diaspora instead of even recognizing an opposing viewpoint.

Even if they lost a general election and even if they abided by the result, another regime would have to unwind the patronage and boondoggles of the current Government. This would be interpreted as hostile aggression, not market reforms.

The Bolivarian Revolution must lose all credibility before all support leeches away. From the ashes something will be rebuilt.

A disappointingly naive article by The Economist. Mr. Maduro does not have the brainpower to understand the consequences of his actions (messing with the foreign exchange rate, price-fixing, threatening with up to 14 years of jail time to owners of stores which charge more than a 30% mark-up on their items, etc). Every time his economic policies don't have their intended effect, he (earnestly) cries foul and denounces economic sabotage; the man isn't a political operator, he's an economically illiterate buffoon.

Murders per year have quintupled since Mr. Chavez came to power in 1999 (from 4,550 to 24,000 in 2013), Fiscal Deficit for 2013 is estimated at 11% of GDP or more, official figures for inflation in 2013 are of 56%, and people are being told in no uncertain terms that they do not have a right to protest. Nicolás Maduro is incapable of leading a more moderate government in Venezuela, so this article's hope is very much unrealistic.

Hayek already delineated what happens as a political group seduces the population with the promises of statism and always, by human nature, fails to deliver:

1. party promises material goods and services but says it needs economic centralized power to deliver

2. centralized power isn't as efficient as free market to improve society so the government starts increasing the taxes on the private sector to sustain its ambitions.

3. population starts losing faith on governments promise. party is scared of losing power and begins propaganda but has repression in mind if propaganda fails.

4. private sector is increasingly suffocated and complains along with civil society such as media, unions, student organizations..government propaganda begins to paint complainers/protesters as enemies of the people. repression apparatus is being built now.

5. economy is getting worse since government keeps increasing taxes and control on the private sector as it tries to buy the people but it is a downward spiral. propaganda claiming complainers are enemy of the people is non stop. the party is increasingly split between the hardcore and the softies. the hardcore is working the repressive apparatus more and more.

6. as economy keeps getting worse, protests increase and repression apparatus shuts down all critical organizations such as media; the hardcore section of the party takes over the government in an internal coup

"The regime will forfeit its claims to democratic legitimacy if he does not get the armed gangs off the streets, allow the media to report what is going on, release Mr López and enter into proper dialogue with Mr Capriles."

Let's see...democratic legitimacy, or power? Democratic legitimacy, or power? Hmm, that's a tough one. If Maduro engages in dialogue with the opposition, that would mean they'd have to recognize the legitimacy of that opposition, something which they've refused to do so far. Recognizing the legitimacy of the opposition would mean weakening the chavistas' grip on power, and we all know how much they love power. Stability and national unity don't stand a chance.

Time has already run out for Maduro, as it has for socialism. Once the richest country in South America with bountiful natural resources, Chavez' Venezuela has now become a hot mess of a failed socialist dystopia. The people are without toilet paper or corn flour for their arepas while enduring brutal repression and government sponsored murder; North Korea on the Carribean. There will be no peace in Venezuela no matter how much "dialogue" is spent; the only way forward for their people is to overthrow the socialist regime and return to an embrace of the principles of the free world.

Maduro does not want dialogue. Maduro wants peace which he does not want to buy with true dialogue because hardcore Chavismo will not stand for it. What the Economist article glosses over is that this situation has been brewing for 14 years and without the grease of ample oil revenues its unsustainable. Its very easy to call for dialogue when one doesn't have to endure food shortages, lack of political rights, lack of freedom of the press, lack of justice, corruption, and to top it all incompetent management of the economy. There is no dialogue possible as the situation is now, (too many false starts in 14 years, too many broken promises, no convincing action at any point in those 14 years), but what is going to take the situation over the top are not the street protests but the decaying economic situation.

1) Claims of corruption. Different from Saudi Arabia or Qatar, other oil states? Oh, but these are not even full-fledged democracies like Venezuela!
2) The opposition has consistently refused to accept the result of the clean elections held. PSUV's margin expanded to 10 points in the most recent municipal elections. "Lacking his mentor’s charisma"? Instead, the opposition even staged a coup d'Etat in 2002. Try extrapolating this opposition style to the US or the UK, for example.
3) Further, Wikileaks leaked documents showing the sustained funding and destabilizing that the US is channeling to Venezuela, which -of course- is against its sovereignty as a democratic state. Leopoldo López, the US closest ally, supported the coup d'Etat in 2002, is politically far-right and divisive even within the opposition itself. That is what everything is about, a contest for the leadership of the opposition between López and Capriles. The former was arrested for protection by the government because of death threats on his life. You can see his wife claiming exactly this on TV (on youtube).
4) Government forces do not shoot at peaceful protesters. Many of the dead are killed in car or motorbike accidents in the barricades put by the opposition, for instance, or out of a crime. We never blame Obama because someone was shot dead in a burglary in Washington - why Maduro? Further, Maduro always pursues investigations on the police when it is suspected of misdemeanor, like in any other democratic country. I wish we had that in Spain :(
5) In sum, what the Economist is doing with Venezuela is like siding with the Tea Party and claiming that Obama's regime is extremely divisive. Well, it would be then a biased and interested article...

1) Being a democracy is much more than holding elections: you also need to have separations of powers and freedom of speech. Venezuela has neither.
2) Why do you claim that Venezuelans elections were clean? Because you favourite website told you? were you even there when they happened?
3) Wikileaks also showed that the Venezuelan government had connections to drugs and state intervention from part of Cuba. Again, why do you only cite the cables that "fit" your story?
4) How do you know that the government does not shoot at protesters. Have you been in any of these protests? Are you saying that all my friends that have recorded the situation in their own phones are liars? Are you saying that the eyes of my family members are wrong? Or is it that the "CIA" is controlling our eyes too?
5) The situation in Venezuela is nothing like the situation in the states. Also, why is it that whenever we Venezuelans start showing that we are angry with our government, some people start talking about the USA? Is it that we the people of the 3rd world are so stupid that we cannot even know when we are angry? We need some one else to "manipulate" us?

You say you are Spanish, buy a ticket and fly to Venezuela (direct from Madrid). See for yourself.

Oh please, so just because Maduro won the election that qualifies Venezuela as a democracy? Maybe yes, like the "democracies" of Zimbabwe, Iran, Russia, all with no free judiciary, legislative or free media.
Contrary to your saying, government forces did shot peaceful protesters, like in Iran when people protested against rigged elections.

Something else, the high criminality in Venezuela: do you deny it? and who do you blame for it? Actually it suits Maduro and his people to have goons 'colectivos' fighting for them, it is part of the class warfare they advocate.

I also imagine that the disastrous estate of the economy is not Chavez or Maduro's fault. There is no other explanation than their incompetence for the fact that one of the richest countries in Latin America is lacking most of the things that even in the poorest countries most people take for granted: flour, oil..etc. Maduro (and Chavez before him) would have loved an US embargo, so they would have had someone to accuse for all their economic woes, as it is they have nobody but themselves to blame

Parvulescoh's comment is a good one. My first reaction on reading this "Leader" was to put the Economist issue down and go do something else, to calm down. I think a journalistic ethics line has been crossed here. Let's answer a few of the article's statements. The opposition ("supported by better-off and professional Venezuelans") has already been radicalized by those better-off folk with the encouragement of corporate types both inside and outside Venezuela (which are well-supported by The Economist), and with meddling by the US - as in the past. Ukraine is an analogy? Perhaps so, including meddling by the US. I'm sure Putin isn't entirely wrong about that. I have thought for some time that Venezuela would be next. It seems that I'm right, and sure enough here is The Economist telling me so. Cuba is a good example of another country whose problems are mostly ones that have intentionally been created by the US and multinationals whose religious sensibilities have been offended and whose profits have been hurt. So exploiting Venezuela's oil reserves must be done by foreign capitalist investors? Why? Brazil disagreed, and good for them. Ecuador wouldn't bend to US and multinationals' demands (including easing environmental protection), and the international oil sector has largely boycotted Ecuador. No doubt The Economist would justify that in a quasi-religious manner worthy of the 5th Century Christian apologists. It is The Economist's religion, neo-liberalism, we are talking about here. Believe in it and play by its rules or be painfully excommunicated from the international economic order. In Venezuela the private sector is treated like a hostile force? Well, as you pretty much admit, it is a hostile force. With your ideological blinders, you can see a socialist government (or Maduro's party) being a hostile force against the private sector, but you are incapable of seeing the private sector in a socialist (I would say social democratic) country as a hostile force against the elected government. Maduro's party's "hardliners"? What does that mean, other than that you don't like them? A totalitarian script? It is a democratically elected government facing what looks to them very much like a coup attempt, with the big power of the hemisphere (which has staged coups in Venezuela and elsewhere in Latin America before) behind it. What should they do? Wait for a Bay of Pigs style invasion or assassination attempts with The Economist cheering them on? As for crime and violence and their damage to the economy, I doubt very much that objective observers would lay the responsibility of that entirely at the door of the Maduro government. Yes Latin American governments have obligations - but I would say those are mostly to stand up for weak sovereign elected governments which want to follow a left-of-centre path, and which have to do it in the face of the big regional power, and the neo-liberal religious crusade - exemplified by The Economist - against any deviants. Who the hell is The Economist to tell a democratically elected government what they should do? Maduro "needs to change Venezuela's economic direction"? Really? Let me guess. So it agrees with The Economist's religion? And never mind what the Venezuelan people voted for in the last election, and the one - no two - before that? Oh never mind - they were the poorer folk who don't count. The right wing always thinks social programs are unsustainable - look at current politics in the US and the UK. Subsidies to allies or to poor people? All that's obvious is that such things are against The Economist's religion. Cuba and Venezuela helped each other in diverse ways and it would take some objective analysis (not by The Economist!) to determine which country benefited more. Maduro's strategy is to divide Venezuela? As if it wasn't already divided, by the economic & political system that preceded Hugo Chavez! Like Chile was before Salvador Allende was elected, eh? Well then, the US and The Economist know what to do - again. Why should Mr. Maduro enter into "proper dialogue with Mr. Capriles"? They recently fought an election which Maduro won and Capriles lost. Maybe Capriles and his supporters should do what the anti-Yanukovych Ukrainians and the anti-Morsi Egyptians should have done - wait for the next election. I think the US will regret not having done that in the Ukraine, and if it is involved in the overthrow of the Maduro government the backlash in Latin America will last for generations.

Anyone that claims there is a socialist government anywhere in the Southern cone, simply has no experience or understanding of the region. Too many words - too little real experience or first hand knowledge.

You suggest in your article that the opposition should limit themselves to completely peaceful protest. Could you please explain how to achieve this (and stay alive) when the government forces shoot at peaceful protesters?

If "they... don't," they why was the corpse of the Venezuelan actress carried off with a bullet in her head that was somehow put there (I'd bet on fired as opposed to, say, hammered) by government forces?

Who cares? Largest oil reserves in the world... Cheap prices to other Latinamerican countries --Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua, etc. -- USA is his best customer for its oil... So, who cares about Venezuela? Other LA countries do not want to make noise... Too many economic and political interests in that geopolitical arena.

Indeed, who cares? I have yet to hear Brasil, Mexico or any other respectable (I don't include Argentina in the respectable ones) Latin American government say anything about what is happening in Venezuela. Why? maybe because they are afraid of the same thing that is happening in Venezuela happening to them?

I did not considere your point... It may be so... In regard do Mexico, where I live, I think it is not the case here... Huge manifestations occurr quite often with no represion from the goverment in turn.

While the Maduro's regime has a following the idea that is a country divided is a myth. The "opposition" is made up of people from every social level and ideologies. Crime and the absence of basic goods affects everyone. In contrast so many government supporters do it out of fear and coercion. If somebody is a government employee and does not shows that support at the superiors request they risk loosing their job and who wants to loose a job in country where there is none. Other than this, this article is very accurate to the situation in Venezuela

The person writing this article,emphasizes class warfare. Could not be further from truth! As a Venezuelan I can testify to the hundreds of first hand discontent expressions I have directly witness coming from the lower ends of socio economical strata. All but the little group of political leaders form the communist regime and their business allies, are in pain and constant suffering. Discontent is in the entire nation! There is no division of class,color of skin or profession/occupation when facing the harsh impact of the neo communist regime. Now,the repression that begun to the student( most students in Venezuela go to public universities ever since the 50's)is spread out to all and sundry! You are misrepresenting the facts and falling under the same regimes propaganda. Prejudice by chance?

It is sad how the Economist uses its credibility to lie to their misinformed public in relation to countries that are not aligned with the West... For instance In Spain the police killed 16 people just one month ago, one prisoner died in jail, and so on, but we do not receive such a coverage condemning the violent repression of the regime as following a totalitarian script. How weird.

Of course I do not expect the Economist to publish a fair article on Venezuela, but at least I can comment how such use of information serving political and economic gain is so sad...

For being ideologically driven, nothing can beat the article itself. It's just hard to see that when both the publication and the commenter share the same ideology. As the saying goes, the last thing a fish notices in its environment is water. As for untruth and bias in the article, see my other comment above (a friendly reply to Parvulescoh).

Good summary but fails to point out the biggest problem in this mess which constitutes a huge threat to the region... The unbelievable influence the Castro brothers exert on Maduro and the Venezuelan security and armed forces..... Cuba went from hopeless and isolated to controling the largest oil reserves in the world, that the US isnt taking a more delibelrate position here is quite perplexing....

The US is on the brink of becoming energy self sufficient, and actually a net exporter of fuel. Venezuelan oil will become excess to requirement. Venezuela is also not a security threat to the US. Not perplexing at all that they aren't too concerned with a misbehaving child that lives a couple of neighbourhoods over...

In fact Cuba was only isolated by the US and its adherents (Canada continued with recognition & economic ties for example, as did Mexico, Spain, and others), but given US proximity and power that was enough. Kennedy had to agree with Khrushchev that the US would stop military subversion of Cuba. But the economic oppression/subversion continued, and became part of US domestic politics (as with the Israel-Palestine issue). Cuba was far from hopeless after its revolution. Like other Latin American countries who attempted to take a left-of-centre road, Cuba was economically squashed by the US and the multinationals. Cuba's less than democratic system can be justified to some extent by its fear of US aggression. So, Alberto, you are saying straight out that it is OK that the US can, and should, subvert governments it doesn't like ideologically speaking, even when they pose no threat to the US? Be Latin America's neo-liberal policeman in other words? Continue to do what they have done for more than a century in Central and South America, at the behest of the international corporations? In Nicaragua, Chile, and others? Be up-front if that's what you believe. So the Monroe Doctrine is, and should be, alive and well? I don't agree.

Good article . One very much doubts that Maduro will negotiate with the opposition . He tried this week but nobody took him seriously , certainly while the main opposition leader is still in prison !
Your comment about the lack of reaction from other countries in the area is of interest . So far only Chile , Colombia and Panama have expressed strong opinions , in all cases calling for dialogue . From the rest silence Why ? Because they are governed by left wing parties , all close to Chavez/ Maduro . These were the countries who strongly criticised Paraguay when it , legally , impeached President Lugo . Even throwing it out of Mercosur to , surprise / surprise , make way for Venezuela to enter the club . A club which went from free trade to a left wing debating society .
The difference in reaction between the two cases ? In Paraguay a left wing President was ousted . In Venezuela a left wing President is facing the consequences of utter mismanagement but the friends remain silent ! This is particularly true of Brazil . But then Rousseff's top foreign policy advisor is a French trained communist .

Good points Burn38. I would also add that many of the countries remaining conspicuously silent to brutal Venezuelan regime are clients of Chavez's and Maduro's governments largess with public funds e.g. free oil for Cuba, briefcases full of cash for the Kirchners in Argentina, funding for Evo in Bolivia (Chavez's mini-me) and Correa in Ecuador, etc. It's shameful and the countries in this hemisphere should not be given a free pass for turning a blind eye to what's going on in Venezuela.

The worst thing about Rousseff's silence is that she suffered from the oppression of a military regime when she was younger. So know I do not understand why she doesn't denounce the situation.
Could it be because of the large contracts that companies like Odebrecht among others have in Venezuela?

Exactly right. I am sad to see such a wonderful continent dominated by the deluded philosophy of the far left. Look up forum of Sao Paulo. Other leaders are worried their people will wake up as Venezuelan s have.

Query: does Maduro really control things anymore? My guess is that the baracks, Chavez's spawning ground, haven't quite reached the point of wanting to take the clown out because they haven't figured out yet how best to insulate themselves from the fallout.

I've been wondering the same thing. The first protesters to be shot were apparently killed by members of the Venezuelan intelligence service, Sebin. To hear Maduro tell it, they left their barracks against his orders and are now on trial. Either he can't control his own people or he's looking for someone to throw under the bus (no punn intended).